Chat with 100 girls
A combination of educating girls and family planning, which together could reduce 120 gigatons of CO2-equivalent by 2050 — more than on- and offshore wind power combined (99 GT).
If there’s no peer-reviewed data, we can’t model it. We know how to regenerate that, using animals, using cover, using no-till. First of all, let’s be honest: The US has never led in this area. When they’ve tried on an executive level, they’ve never been supported by Congress. I don’t want to in any way whistle past the graveyard of the enormous damage and harm President Trump can do, in terms of security and war and suffering. We thought at least the top of the list would — solar, wind, wind, solar. If you take solar, which is eight and 10 [on the list], and wind, which is two and 22, and you combine them, they are definitely near the top.Because that’s what you hear from Charles Ferguson, Al Gore, [Jeffrey] Sachs, or Christiana Figueres. It’s understandable — 62 percent of the [greenhouse gas] molecules up there came from fossil fuel combustion, so you just invert it, right? But you can’t model on- and off-shore wind the same, because the economics are vastly different.And on the economic side, which is more difficult and gnarly, there’s no such thing as peer reviewed data in most cases. States have led, cities have led, but never the federal government. When [Trump] was elected, I went over every one [of the solutions]. It’s just that people in the United States think that they’re the leaders on this stuff. We do lit reviews, tech reviews — we’ve got a couple thousand notes and three thousand references for the content. No, no, no — just the footprint of maintaining standing armies and militaries around the world. Until 2017, there was no real way for ordinary people to get an understanding of what they can do and what impact it can have. Since the early 1980s, he has been starting green businesses, writing books on ecological commerce (President Bill Clinton called Hawken’s one of the five most important books in the world), consulting with businesses and governments, speaking to civic groups, and collecting honorary doctorates (six so far).
There was no single, comprehensive, reliable compendium of carbon-reduction solutions across sectors. A few years ago, he set out to pull together the careful coverage of solutions that had so long been lacking.
The second is that 11 of the 15 could only be done by big corporations — primarily energy utility and car companies — but they were so deeply underwater financially that it was not going to happen. [laughter] The science was clear, but the solutions were just dramatically not.
It could happen now, but at that time it was not viable. And then when Bill [Mc Kibben]’s piece came out in 2012, “Global Warming’s Terrifying New Math,” which is based on Mark Campanale’s work at Carbon Tracker, I had friends saying, “game over.” And so I finally decided to do : name the goal and then map, measure, and model, see if it’s achievable.
There’s also a “coming attractions” category of not-yet-commercialized technologies, but they are not included in the scenarios.] How did the book get started?
I hadn’t thought about solutions much until I saw the wedges, in 2001.
But even then, the number one solution is educating girls and family planning. We took the numbers from other agencies — from World Bank, WHO, IPCC. You get carbon capture in plant life where you couldn’t before.